Royle & Ors v Burger King Ltd & Ors

Royle & Ors v Burger King Ltd & Ors

The claims were compromised and released by the Company and Partnership Compromise Agreements, which were binding and covered all claims including conspiracy. There was no real prospect of establishing that the administrators were party to a conspiracy or acted under duress. The derivative action was not properly constituted. Therefore, the claims were properly struck out and summary judgment entered for the defendants.

Parties
Claimants/appellants: KIRRIS ROYLE and Others; Defendants/respondents: BURGER KING LTD and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) – Judgment on Strike Out/summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Compromise Agreements, Conspiracy, Derivative Actions, Release of Claims
Civil Procedure Insolvency Law Contract Law Tort Law Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Compromise Agreements Conspiracy +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KIRRIS ROYLE and Others

Claimants/appellants

BURGER KING LTD and Others

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) – Judgment on Strike Out/summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims against Burger King and HM Group Ltd were compromised by the Company and Partnership Compromise Agreements
  2. 2 Whether the administrators were party to a conspiracy rendering the compromise agreements invalid
  3. 3 Whether the claims could be pursued as derivative actions on behalf of the company

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were compromised and released by the Company and Partnership Compromise Agreements, which were binding and covered all claims including conspiracy. There was no real prospect of establishing that the administrators were party to a conspiracy or acted under duress. The derivative action was not properly constituted. Therefore, the claims were properly struck out and summary judgment entered for the defendants.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • All claims against the first, second, and seventh defendants struck out or dismissed; summary judgment for those defendants.